Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Watermelon Marxism’ GREEN On Outside, RED on Inside

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In the latest display of liberal, faith-based eco-fanaticism, newly-elected U.S. Rep. Oscasio-Cortez is attempting to force a “green ‘new deal'” on the American people, according to reports.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “new deal” is a very expensive deal. It is, in fact, fiscally impossible without expanding U.S. GDP (total wealth created by American people in a single year) by four times its current size, according to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) from from 2003 to 2005.

Holtz-Eakin is now head of the right-of-center think tank “American Action Forum,” which released the report.

In fact, current unfunded federal liabilities owed to the rest of the world, i.e. America’s creditors — the countries who own U.S. treasuries and to whom America must pay annual interest in order to even turn the lights on and pump clean water into our communities — exceed $80 trillion (four times world GDP).

When such figures are taken into account, it’s not difficult to understand how some in Congress and the public may identify mathmatical deficiencies in Cortez’s ambitious “green” agenda.

The so-called “Green ‘New Deal'” may tally between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10-years, concludes American Action Forum.

“The Green New Deal is clearly very expensive,” the group said in its analysis. “It’s further expansion of the federal government’s role in some of the most basic decisions of daily life, however, would likely have a more lasting and damaging impact than its enormous price tag.”

“That includes between $8.3 trillion and $12.3 trillion to meet the plan’s call to eliminate carbon emissions from the power and transportation sectors and between $42.8 trillion and $8.6 trillion for its economic agenda including providing jobs and health care for all,” reports Bloomberg.

It’s an old technique for socialists to utilize the cover of other issues and emotional appeals to conceal totally unrelated (but coveted) policies of wealth redistribution and totalitarian control.

Don’t believe us at Big League Politics; believe former Obama admin. Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein. During the lead-up to former Pres. Barack Obama’s own attempted “Green ‘New Deal,'” Sunstein wrote the following:

It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid.

He added:

We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.

Furthermore, Sunstein thinks that “[i]f we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses.”

Sunstein is not alone. Van Jones — Obama’s environmental czar — propigated the term, “eco-apartheid.” Such convenient (and self-serving) ideological devices are the basic for Jones’ wild-eyed exclamation, “Give them the wealth! Give them the wealth! No justice on stolen land…we owe them a debt.”

Obama presumably was on board, since even he pledged to “bankrupt” the coal industry, among other outrageous remarks:

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

Obama’s “cap-and-trade” plan would have reduced U.S. GDP by $9 trillion and lowered emissions past a point where no industrial nation could endure — wholly consistent with Obama’s pledge to bankrupt the coal industry, despite the fact that coal accounts for 50 percent of U.S. energy consumption.

Obama also tried to lock the U.S. into the never-ratified Kyoto Protocol — despite the obvious threats to US security. In its non-partisan report to study the implications of implementing Kyoto, the US Environmental Information Agency predicted a loss of between $100-400 billion in US GDP and skyrocketing energy prices. Moreover, the Kyoto Treaty’s effect on our national security due to reductions in military training and operational tempo would have been staggering.

When combined with the no-sale Copenhagen Treaty and the Paris Agreement, both of which sought to achieve global wealth redistribution under the banner of “climate debt,” Cortez’s “Green ‘New Deal'” is clearly the extension of socialist ideology by other means.

There’s nothing new under the Sun, especially hot-tempered socialists.

Cortez should cool off before she confuses her next outburst of grade-school antics with sensible public policy.

Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?

Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.